School backs off on laptop spying policy in wake of lawsuit

The school district that made headlines for spying on students at home has …

Less than a day after Harriton High School's questionable laptop policy made headlines online, its school district has disabled its remote monitoring capabilities. The Lower Merion School District (LMSD) issued a statement in response to a privacy lawsuit by a student saying that it has disabled its "security tracking feature" that allowed the schools to remotely spy on students, even while at home. LMSD claims this feature has never been used for anything but security purposes, though some comments online indicate the contrary.

According to LMSD, the tracking feature was only installed because laptops tend to be subject to loss and theft, and it was only activated in that specific scenario. "The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen," reads the statement. "The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever."

Nonetheless, the district has disabled this after Thursday's hubbub when news emerged that a Harriton High School student had been disciplined for "improper behavior" at home. The assistant principal cited a photo taken from the webcam on his school-issued MacBook, sparking outrage from the student's parents when they confirmed that the school could remotely spy on their kid. The parents filed a lawsuit alleging violations of civil rights, privacy, and interception of communications.

Many readers (ourselves included) were skeptical about the initial claims—surely the school would have known that such invasions of privacy would not be considered kosher and it must have been a misunderstanding. Though the school refused to talk to Ars about the laptop policy when we called (and LMSD never responded to our inquiries), it appears as if LMSD is at least willing to indirectly admit that there were some parts to the policy that could use some improvement. Parents were never made aware that someone could remote desktop into their kids' computers—and possibly take a snapshot. The district now claims that it won't turn the feature back on without written notification to students and families.

However, there are still questions as to whether the school strictly used this in the event of loss or theft as LMSD says. As pointed out in the comments of our original article, a user claiming to be a recent Harriton High School graduate posted his perspective online, noting that the green light on the MacBooks' built-in webcam would come on often enough to arouse student suspicion. "Some [students] covered it up with tape and post-its because they thought the IT guys were watching them," he wrote.

Whether these claims are true is anyone's guess, but it's clear that the school district felt it had landed itself in hot water and decided to take precautions before the situation further escalated. This is unlikely to put a stop to the lawsuit, but it could at least relieve parents' worries that their kids are being watched by outsiders.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

I could see the logic behind using the webcam in case of theft (and with strong controls in place to prevent abuse, and strict punishment for violation)- but it's clear the school wasn't just doing that.

This policy change, to me, only makes me believe that the school was INDEED doing what was claimed, and criminal charges should be brought against anyone that knew about it. The court system really needs to take a strong stance against the public school system's attempts to invade into their student's private lives.

First the school reprimanded the student for "improper behavior" in his home by using the webcam to spy on him.

Then they say it's a security feature only to be used in case of theft.

So if that's the case, why was the child spied on?

Point being, the school system's cute little explanation really explains nothing. They haven't explained why the student was spied on in the first place! Am I seriously daft or am I understanding this correctly?

Originally posted by Jackattak:Wait a minute, I need something cleared up here.

First the school reprimanded the student for "improper behavior" in his home by using the webcam to spy on him.

Then they say it's a security feature only to be used in case of theft.

So if that's the case, why was the child spied on?

Point being, the school system's cute little explanation really explains nothing. They haven't explained why the student was spied on in the first place! Am I seriously daft or am I understanding this correctly?

That school is F-U-C-K-E-D. Fucked.

I believe the claim is that the student the picture was taken of had, in fact, stolen the laptop from another student.

Originally posted by Jackattak:Wait a minute, I need something cleared up here.

First the school reprimanded the student for "improper behavior" in his home by using the webcam to spy on him.

Then they say it's a security feature only to be used in case of theft.

So if that's the case, why was the child spied on?

Point being, the school system's cute little explanation really explains nothing. They haven't explained why the student was spied on in the first place! Am I seriously daft or am I understanding this correctly?

That school is F-U-C-K-E-D. Fucked.

I believe the claim is that the student the picture was taken of had, in fact, stolen the laptop from another student.

Thank you. That certainly helps.

However, if that were the case, why isn't he being reprimanded for theft of the laptop (i.e. criminal charges) instead of "improper behavior" at home? Sounds like a weak excuse to me.

As you guys have mentioned, the supposed "theft" policy has nothing to do with the improper behavior thing. The policy is ONLY related to the school's ability to "spy" on the students. It obviously doesn't address the specific lawsuit, and the lawsuit is likely to continue (if I were to guess).

Do we have an ETA on the court case starting on this? It seems with as close-lipped as the school and the school district is being, the ONLY way we're going to get solid facts on the case is through the court records and reporting. I, for one, am really looking forward to hearing the school's side of this. The comments above about how the claims of theft being the only reason to activate it and then the announcement of "improper behavior" do not jive with me as well. One way or another, the longer the school stays quiet, the more these questions and conflicts are going to build until people will demand the heads of all those involved at the school, even if they get repudiated from the whole matter by the court.

that the green light on the MacBooks' built-in webcam would come on often enough to arouse student suspicion. "Some [students] covered it up with tape and post-its because they thought the IT guys were watching them," he wrote.

One can't help but wonder if this happened more frequently to MacBooks issued to cheerleader-type upperclassmen.

Leaving the ability to turn on the webcam remotely AT ALL on a notebook issued to a minor to take home with them was a really, REALLY stupid mistake.

EVER activating that webcam remotely without having a signed consent form in hand was an even dumber one.

Originally posted by Hiroshimator:maybe 'theft' carries a higher punishment that they didn't want to inflict on him/her for the first offense?

I sure hope this is not the case; that would not be the right lesson to teach a student.

I am certain that there is a lot more to the story; it will be interesting to see what othertidbits come out as the case progresses.

There may have been mitigating circumstances, could even be one kid took his friends laptop as a joke, other kid went to school to say it was lost, school takes a quick look on the camera and finds out who it is and punishes them internally for the joke that caused no harm. Schools often don't call the police as a first response (or at all). How many schoolyard fights wind up with assault charges?

LMSD claims this feature has never been used for anything but security purposes, though some comments online indicate the contrary.

I want to see a citation for this. This whole situation is vague as hell, and the only meaningful commentary made so far regards the use of the software to track theft, which is fair and entirely plausible. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence proving the district was "spying."

quote:

Many readers (ourselves included) were skeptical about the initial claims.

I call bullshit on this as well. The original article on this topic was very blatantly biased in favor of the student/thief. The fact that the "improper behavior" is alleged to be laptop theft is never stated in the article (a huge WTF, as this is critical in considering the situation), and the fact that a theft took place at all is only vaguely touched on.

quote:

As you guys have mentioned, the supposed "theft" policy has nothing to do with the improper behavior thing.

"Nothing to do?" Uhhh, what? It evidently has everything to do with the "improper behavior thing."

I expect better than this from Ars staff. The level of bias in these articles is unacceptable, especially given that we don't know the full story yet. I'm not sure what's worse... that, or the fact that an attempt hasn't even been made to present the scant pertinent information we do have at the moment.

that the green light on the MacBooks' built-in webcam would come on often enough to arouse student suspicion. "Some [students] covered it up with tape and post-its because they thought the IT guys were watching them," he wrote.

One can't help but wonder if this happened more frequently to MacBooks issued to cheerleader-type upperclassmen.

Leaving the ability to turn on the webcam remotely AT ALL on a notebook issued to a minor to take home with them was a really, REALLY stupid mistake.

EVER activating that webcam remotely without having a signed consent form in hand was an even dumber one.

I know for a fact that 100% of fights in my old HS and at least 5 others in my city will always end with the cops being called as well as thefts and that charges will be pressed. Most large schools these days in fact have cops on staff for crying out loud. School has changed quite a bit since you where there I have a feeling or your not from a big HS.

It's not like this kind of spying would work more than once anyway: this 'high-tech' spying can easily be defeated with low-tech countermeasures. I imagine most other kids in that district have since taken it upon themselves to pop a piece of opaque tape over their webcam.

LMSD claims this feature has never been used for anything but security purposes, though some comments online indicate the contrary.

I want to see a citation for this. This whole situation is vague as hell, and the only meaningful commentary made so far regards the use of the software to track theft, which is fair and entirely plausible. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence proving the district was "spying."

quote:

Many readers (ourselves included) were skeptical about the initial claims.

I call bullshit on this as well. The original article on this topic was very blatantly biased in favor of the student/thief. The fact that the "improper behavior" is alleged to be laptop theft is never stated in the article (a huge WTF, as this is critical in considering the situation), and the fact that a theft took place at all is only vaguely touched on.

quote:

As you guys have mentioned, the supposed "theft" policy has nothing to do with the improper behavior thing.

"Nothing to do?" Uhhh, what? It evidently has everything to do with the "improper behavior thing."

I expect better than this from Ars staff. The level of bias in these articles is unacceptable, especially given that we don't know the full story yet. I'm not sure what's worse... that, or the fact that an attempt hasn't even been made to present the scant pertinent information we do have at the moment.

Hypocrite much? You blast Ars because YOU didn't see any evidence proving the district was "spying" then you turn around and call the student a thief. Do you have any evidence proving the laptop in question was even stolen? In addition, is it really in the schools purview to locate stolen equipment or should the responsibility for activating this "security feature" have been turned over to the police?

They would have to inform orbicule of the theft (so this would be a great trace log for checking abuse in this case), I don't know if that then makes the mac talk to their servers or to you directly but I would assume the former.

Using this for spying then sounds like it would be very hard work.

Not that they couldn't have done their own, or used something different.

Given that orbicule offer an education discount it is likely that this is being done in plenty of other places.

Yep, the school and everyone is screwed. People need to think before they act. It is funny how the school is claiming that the laptop was stolen now. When we first heard about this story they said nothing of the sort. You would think that such an important fact would be put forward immediately.

Personally I do not believe the school in this case. I think that they are lying to cover their very screwed asses.

Do you have any evidence proving the laptop in question was even stolen? In addition, is it really in the schools purview to locate stolen equipment or should the responsibility for activating this "security feature" have been turned over to the police?

FSH

I haven't found proof that it was stolen, but their currently stated policy is to not engage the application unless there was a report of it being lost or stolen. However, they do not explicitly say if this was the case or not. That could be due to the investigation and being advised not to speak on the matter.

In the case of Absolute's Lo-Jack for laptops, they will work with the police to try and recover the PC, but you also have the ability to do certain tasks on the laptop itself, such as deleting files without police intervention.

Originally posted by jayfish:Hypocrite much? You blast Ars because YOU didn't see any evidence proving the district was "spying" then you turn around and call the student a thief. Do you have any evidence proving the laptop in question was even stolen? In addition, is it really in the schools purview to locate stolen equipment or should the responsibility for activating this "security feature" have been turned over to the police?

While I clearly said the theft was only an allegation, my issue isn't with any of the facts of this controversy. It's clear at this point, there really aren't any. Instead, my issue was with both of the articles presenting a heavy bias without justification. I couldn't care less about proving the theft or whose responsibility it was to activate the security system. I'm simply interested in encouraging Arsian Journalism to remain objective and analytical. If I wanted sensationalism, I'd go elsewhere.

Nice job avoiding the rebuttal of a single one of my points, though.

In regard to the actual controversy, I'll certainly cede that the lack of disclosure regarding the policy was a huge mistake regardless of whether or not the kid stole the laptop.

We are installing a web cam in every child's bedroom. You have no choice. However, please check below if you approve of us turning it on:

O Yes, please spy on my underage child in his/her bedroom whenever you want. Do not call on the phone first to see if he/she is dressed.

O No, I do not approve. However, I understand that the camera and software will still be there. I understand that you swear on a stack of Bibles that it won't be used at all and especially for illicit purposes. I understand that my child's school has the most awesome security and no one could ever hack in and watch my child without consent, in his/her bedroom, clothed or otherwise. I completely trust the school in this regard.

Thank you for returning this consent form as soon as possible. Or you can throw it in the trash. Either way will have the same result.